EJAJ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 21-1-2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Mango P. S. Case No. 392 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. No. 2549 of 2005 whereby and where under the cognizance for the offence under Sections 285,286,337,338 and 304-A of the IPC has been taken against the petitioner and others. The petitioner further prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid case.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief as per the FIR lodged by Intekhab Ahmad (Annexure-1) is that he was working in Ama Enterprises. It is further stated that in the said Ama Enterprises, seats of vehicles manufactured by Telco, are being prepared. It is further stated that after painting the seats they were put in hot chamber and heated for 10 minutes at a temperature of 200 Centigrade. It is further alleged that on 25-11-2005 at about 11.30 a.m. after painting the seats the informant along with others put the said seats in the hot chamber for heating. It is further alleged that when the In-charge of the Hot Chamber, namely, Md. Shakeel, ignited the hot chamber it burst due to explosion. It is further alleged that in the aforesaid explosion, Sonu an employee of the factory sustained serious injuries, whereas other employee, namely, Abdul Hamid, informant (Intekhab), Makbul Alam, Md. Yamin also received injuries. It is further alleged that the said hot chamber was not properly maintained by the owner, Manager and Site Incharge of the factory, namely, Ejaj Ahmad, Abdul Salam and Md. Jamil respectively. It is further alleged that the accused persons are negligent in maintaining the hot chamber, hence the accident took place.

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if any accident took place in a factory premises then only a case under Section 92 of the Factory Act is maintainable. IT is submitted that for the same sets of facts petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Sections 285, 286, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC. IT is submitted that when there is a special law for prosecuting the occupier of the factory for the accident, which took place in his factory, then the general law i.e. Indian Penal Code have no application. IT is submitted that it is well settled that the special law prevails over the general law. IT is further submitted that as per Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code, one person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence.